12/1. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) held a forum on Voice over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) issues. All five Commissioners sat through both the morning
and afternoon sessions.

Chairman Michael Powell
again stated that the FCC will issue a Notice of Public Rulemaking
(NPRM) "to inquire about the migration of voice services to IP-based
networks and gather public comment on the appropriate regulatory environment for
these services". See, FCC
release of November 6, 2003. However, at the VOIP forum, he declined to offer a prediction
about when the FCC will release this NPRM.

The Commissioners generally called for a light regulatory touch, and focused on five
regulatory issues: E-911 mandates, wiretapping and surveillance under the CALEA, access
by disabled people, universal service subsidies, and access charges. No Commissioners
spoke in support of price regulation of VOIP services.

The FCC often hosts forums, roundtables and other gatherings.
Frequently, one or more Commissioners attend the beginning of the program, make
brief remarks, and then leave. This forum was atypical in that all five
Commissioners attended, remained for the entire program, and participated in
questioning the other participants.

The FCC also announced the formation of Internet Policy Working Group. See,
following story.

The FCC will keep the record open for two weeks. Written comments must be 1,000 words
or less.

Opening Statements by Commissioners. FCC Chairman
Michael Powell read a
statement
[PDF] at the beginning of the program. He said that
"As one who believes unflinchingly in maintaining an Internet free from government
regulation, I believe that IP-based services such as VOIP should evolve in a
regulation-free zone. No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into
this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so.
Innovation and capital investment depend on this premise. The entrepreneurs
seated before us depend upon this premise. In my view, we should come to this
forum with a sense of regulatory humility - mindful that it is entrepreneurs,
not governments, who came up with the idea of making high-quality, inexpensive
phone calls over the Internet."

Powell (at right)
continued that "In my view, that policy environment must begin with the
recognition that the Internet is inherently a global network that does not
acknowledge narrow, artificial boundaries." But, he added, "This is not to say
that states don’t have important roles in the areas of their traditional police
powers."

Powell also stated that "To be sure, health, safety and welfare
concerns may give rise to uniquely state interests and it might be proper for
them to play a role in these areas. Economic regulation, however, is entirely
another matter and we should approach that area of regulation with significant
skepticism."

Commissioner
Kathleen Abernathy
stated that the rapid pace of technological development and state regulatory
actions require that the FCC now take a lead role in setting federal policy in
this area. She advocated a "predominantly federal regulatory scheme" with "a
light regulatory touch". She also said that the FCC must address "core social
policy objectives" including universal service, 911, CALEA, and disabled access.

Commissioner Michael
Copps also read an
opening statement [PDF]. He said that "While none of us knows where this
will all come out, we need to pull back and think anew. It’s incumbent on us to
identify good policy going forward and not just shoehorn VoIP into statutory
terms or regulatory pigeonholes without adequate justification. It’s no
slam-dunk that the old rules even apply. But we do need to discuss the
consequences of the proliferation of VoIP services on our important statutory
objectives—universal service, homeland security, 911 services, accessibility by
people with disabilities, and encouraging the build-out of advanced
telecommunications services. We need to craft a space in which this technology
succeeds because of its inherent ability, not due to regulatory arbitrage or
exception. Indeed, tackling VoIP may force us to come to terms with other
pending proceedings that also cry out for solution.

Commissioner
Jonathan Adelstein
said in his opening
statement [PDF]
that the FCC must provide for FBI surveillance of VOIP communications, E911, and
other existing programs.

Adelstein
(at left) stated that "we must understand the concerns raised by DOJ and FBI
that classifying Vonage’s VoIP as an information service severely undercuts
CALEA. They say that call content and caller identification could evade lawful
electronic surveillance, and that VoIP jeopardizes the ability of federal,
state, and local governments to protect public safety and national security
against domestic and foreign threats. Public safety is not negotiable."

He also stated that "emergency services are not negotiable."

He also said that "We must protect the underpinnings of universal service.
Congress clearly stated that all Americans, whether urban or rural, should have access to
high quality services at reasonable rates. If VoIP providers are not required to
contribute, it creates an opportunity for regulatory arbitrage and further
undermines the already troubled funding mechanism. So if VoIP is the future,
then the steps we take must protect universal access to the best services
available."

Finally, Adelstein addressed access charges. He said that "We also need
to determine how underlying carriers are compensated for carrying third parties' traffic.
Some VoIP providers pay no access fees even though in many instances they are using local
phone lines to route their traffic. We cannot afford to let the rise of VoIP to
undercut the very networks that carry it."

FCC Staff Presentations. Jennifer McKee and Russell Hanser gave presentations
on the current regulatory framework, and pending FCC proceedings, respectively.

McKee reviewed the FCC's Second Computer Inquiry, with its definitions of basic and
enhanced services, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, with its definitions of
telecommunications and information services, and the FCC's 1998 Stevens report,
which addressed VOIP.

The FCC defined "basic service" as a pure transmission capability offered on
a common carrier basis for the movement of information. Basic services are
subject to common carrier regulation under the Communications Act, including
interconnection, privacy, CALEA, universal service, and disability access. The
Computer II decision stated that "enhanced service" involves computer
processing, interaction with customer supplied information, and interaction with
stored information. And, it stated that enhanced services are not subject to
Title II regulation.

The 1996 Act defined "telecommunications" as the "transmission, between or
among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing,
without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received."
It defined "telecommunications service" as the "offering of telecommunications
for a fee directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be
effectively available to the public, regardless of facilities used."

The 1996 then defined "information service" as the "offering of a capability
for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving,
utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications." The 1996 Act
provided that telecommunications services are generally subject to Title II
regulation, while "information services" are not subject to Title II regulation.

Finally, in April of 1998, the FCC wrote a report to the Congress, as required by
§623(b)(1)
of a CJS Appropriations Act, in which it made some tentative conclusions
about VOIP. It concluded that computer to computer VOIP is not a
telecommunications service. However, phone to phone VOIP may be treated as a
telecommunications service, if the provider holds itself out as providing voice
telephony services, and meets certain other criteria. The primary concern of
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), and others,
was universal service contributions. See also, TLJ
story titled
"FCC Claims Authority to Tax Internet Telephony", April 13, 1998.

Russell Hanser then reviewed the three proceedings currently pending at the
FCC regarding VOIP: an AT&T petition, a Pulver.com petition, and a Vonage
petition.

Panel Presentations. The Commission then heard from two panels. The
first panel was assigned the task of presenting technical and market issues. The second
panel was assigned the task of addressing policy issues. However, both panels discussed
both technical and policy issues.

The first panel was comprised of Kevin Werbach
(Supernova Group),
Charles
Giancarlo (SVP/GM of Cisco Systems), Jeff Pulver (Pulver.com), John
Hodulik (UBS), and John Billock (COO of Time Warner Cable).

Kevin Werbach, who worked at the FCC when the 1998 VOIP report was written,
gave an overview of devices and applications that have VOIP capabilities. He also
argued that the greatest threat to VOIP is not regulatory action, but regulatory
inaction. The risk, said Werbach, is that legacy regulations would be applied to VOIP. See,
PowerPoint presentation.

John Billock of
Time Warner Cable (TWC) discussed the deployment of VOIP by cable operators. He
also stated that TWC "is committed to supporting important public policies
associated with its delivery of IP voice services. As I mentioned earlier,
Digital Phone supports and offers access to Enhanced 911 services. In addition,
Time Warner Cable will support the goals of Universal Service by contributing to
both state and federal Universal Service Funds in connection with the Digital
Phone service. Finally, the IP voice solution deployed by Time Warner Cable
supports the capability to assist law enforcement agencies by permitting the
capture, where necessary, of both call identifying information and call
content." See,
prepared testimony [MS Word].

Cisco's Charles Giancarlo
discussed Cisco's IP phones and services. He made the points, as did other
presenters, that VOIP is tied to broadband access, and that is is just one of
many services that may be provided with broadband service. He also said that
while currently telephone charges may be based upon time, the basis for charging
for broadband service will be bandwidth and the services to which one subscribes.

John Hodulik, the Wireline
Telecommunications Analyst at UBS Securities, gave an investment community
viewpoint. He wrote in his
prepared testimony
[MS Word] said that "Ironically, the existing regulatory framework is promoting the
adoption of VoIP as well as any focused strategy could reasonably be expected to
do. When VoIP providers say they worry that regulators could slow the acceptance
of the technology and their growth, they are acknowledging the underlying
regulatory benefits they have relative to the traditional telcos."

"If the
regulatory imbalance remains, the incentive for incumbent carriers to shift
traffic to IP-based platforms will remain strong. The Bells have made it clear
with recent announcements regarding VoIP that they will follow the path
of least resistance. Over time, this will put undue stress on the existing
regulatory framework, making the existing intercarrier compensation regime and
Universal Service funding mechanisms untenable."

Hodulik continued that "From a network standpoint, voice
and IP services can be commingled relatively easily. However, this marriage pits
the micro-managed regulatory world of voice, where returns are almost
guaranteed, with the hands-off, market driven world of IP where companies are
left to sink or swim on their own. From a capital market’s standpoint, much of
the uncertainty is because there appears to be a regulatory void when it comes
to VoIP. The FCC needs to take a leadership position, creating one set of rules
that distinguish between the different types of VOIP Until this is completed,
investors will remain wary about funding new ventures that provide the service."

He called for "a regulatory framework that will stand the
test of time, allowing investors to anticipate the winners and losers based on
strategy and execution rather than unforeseeable changes in Washington." He also
called for a "national standard". He wrote that "A patchwork of differing state
regulations does nothing to provide clarity and, frankly, makes no sense
considering the lack of geographic distinction on the Internet where there are
no LATAs or state boundaries."

He concluded that "VoIP has created not just the need but
also the opportunity for regulators to rethink the traditional framework that
governs telephony in the United States. I believe this forum should be as much
about creating parity as it is about fostering the growth of VoIP. Regulating
VoIP similar to the traditional telephone network is not the answer. The answer
is to fundamentally reassess regulation of the traditional telephone network
before the value-creating portion of that infrastructure and the regulatory
framework that governs it, becomes obsolete."

The second panel included two state regulators with different views. Carl Wood
is a Commissioner of the California PUC who
was appointed by former Gov. Gray Davis. Wood stated that the CPUC is currently in
the process of starting regulation of VOIP providers.

In contrast,
Charles
Davidson is a Commissioner of the Florida
PSC who was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush. He argued for a "hands off
approach". He argued that wireline telephony regulations derive from an era of
monopoly providers and geographically based providers, while VOIP has no market
leader, and is not tied to any locality.

Davidson argued that VOIP is interstate. Wood argued that "there are issues
of interest to states" such as consumer protection. Davidson argued that for
nascent, emerging technologies, the market can protect consumers.

Davidson also argued that VOIP should be free from economic regulation, but
not other regulation, such as 911 and universal service. He also stated that a
VOIP service should be subject to access charges if it meets a "but for" test.
That is, if a call cannot be made or completed, but for reliance on the PSTN,
then it should be subject to access charges.

Gregg
Vanderheiden of the University of Wisconsin argued that regulation is
necessary to provide access to disabled people. He said that market incentives
do not lead companies to provide for disabled access.

James Crowe (Level3), Tom Evslin (ITXC), and Jeffrey Citron (Vonage) all
stated in their various ways that the current system of access charges is a
hopeless, nonsustainable, broken system, and that VOIP should not be subject to
access charges. Crowe argued that VOIP should be subject to 911 regulation and
the CALEA, and contribute to universal service. Evslin too said that VOIP should
contribute to universal service.

Citron argued that law enforcement entities should go to the Congress for CALEA
authority. He also said that progress is being made on emergency services absent
regulation.

Evslin cautioned that regulation could drive VOIP providers offshore
or to peer to peer technologies.

Court Opinions. No one from the FCC's Office of General Counsel gave a
presentation at the VOIP forum. However, there are two major recent court
opinions that are pertinent to FCC regulation of VOIP.

First, on October 6, 2003, the U.S.
Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its
opinion
[39 pages in PDF] in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC, vacating the FCC
declaratory ruling that cable modem service is an information service, and that
there is no separate offering as a telecommunications service. The FCC adopted a
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [75 pages in PDF] at
its March 14, 2002 meeting. This is FCC 02-77 in Docket No. 00-185 and Docket
No. 02-52.

The Declaratory Ruling (DR) component of this item states that "we conclude
that cable modem service, as it is currently offered, is properly classified as
an interstate information service, not as a cable service, and that there is no
separate offering of telecommunications service." The opinion of the Court of
Appeals vacates this DR.

See also, story titled "9th Circuit Vacates FCC Declaratory Ruling That Cable
Modem Service is an Information Service Without a Separate Offering of a
Telecommunications Service" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 754, October 7, 2003; and story titled "Reaction to 9th Circuit
Opinion in Brand X Internet Services v. FCC" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 756, October 9, 2003.

Second, October 16, 2003, the
U.S. District Court (DMinn) issued its
Memorandum and Order [PDF] in Vonage v. Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission, holding that Vonage is an
information service provider, and that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
(MPUC) cannot apply state laws that regulate telecommunications carriers to
Vonage. The Court wrote that "State regulation would effectively decimate
Congress's mandate that the Internet remain unfettered by regulation." The
District Court in Minnesota ignored the 9th Circuit.

These opinions could affect the FCC's ability to use definitions to
accomplish its regulatory goals.

Congressional Comments. No Senators or Representatives participated in
the forum. However, several Senators wrote letters regarding the issue.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a member of the
Senate Commerce Committee, and
its Communications Subcommittee, wrote that "As a
strong supporter of the Universal Service and E-911 programs, I am concerned
that the way in which VOIP is regulated may affect support for these vital
programs, and I urge that this be thoroughly explored. However, it would be a
tragedy if misunderstanding and fear were to prevent VOIP from reaching its full
potential."

He also wrote that "the inherently interstate and international nature of the
internet argue for caution in imposing regulations" and that "uniform treatment
of VOIP would help the technology serve customers".

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), another
member of the Senate Commerce Committee, wrote that "I share your interest in
ensuring that this platform is not saddled with undue regulatory burdens at
either the federal or state level." He continued that "There is concern that if
states approach VoIP in the same manner they regulate the current local phone
systems, the external benefits of the technology, including increased levels of
connectivity and significant network efficiencies, could be lost, which would
hurt individual companies and more importantly consumers. Further, there is a
risk that this kind of action may lead to obligations that are wholly
inappropriate for this platform and might undermine the ability of this new
technology to develop and succeed."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the Chairman
of the Senate Commerce Committee,
wrote that "The existing regulatory uncertainty over the treatment of these
services, however, threatens to quickly create an unhealthy environment for
continued investment and development of competition in this area."

Options Available to the FCC. Powell and Martin both discussed with
panel participants, in broad strokes, some of the options open to the FCC if it
seeks a "light regulatory touch". One approach would be definitional. However,
Martin noted that the 9th Circuit opinion presents an obstacle. Another approach
would be forbearance. However, Powell noted that the FCC cannot forbear on
behalf of the states.

The FCC issued a
release [PDF] that states that the IPWG will "will assist the Commission in
identifying, evaluating and addressing policy issues that will arise as
telecommunications services move to Internet-based platforms. The cross-bureau
and multi-disciplinary working group will be directed by a steering committee
comprised of senior management and staff from several Commission Bureaus and
Offices, and will be staffed as needed by attorneys, engineers and economists
from across the Commission. This Working Group will also reach out to key
constituencies including state regulators, consumer groups and public safety
organizations."

The Co-Directors of the IPWG will be Robert Pepper (Chief of
Policy Development) and Jeff Carlisle (Senior Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau).

The other members of the IPWG will be June Taylor (Chief of Staff, Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau), Anna Gomez (Deputy Chief, International Bureau),
Kyle Dixon (Deputy Chief, Media Bureau), Jeffery Goldthorp (Chief of the Network
Technology Division, Office of Engineering, and Technology), Mary McManus (Special
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel), and David Furth (Associate Bureau Chief/Counsel,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau).

Washington Tech CalendarNew items are highlighted in red.

Tuesday, December 2

The House is in adjournment until December 8.

The Senate is in adjournment until December 9.

9:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Executive Office of the
President's (EOP) Office of Science and Technology
Policy's (OSTP) President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will hold a meeting that
is open to the public. The PCAST's
notice in the Federal Register states that the agenda includes the following:
"(1) Discuss and, pending the discussion, approve a draft report from
its information technology manufacturing competitiveness subcommittee; (2)
discuss the preliminary observations and draft recommendations of its
workforce education subcommittee; and (3) continue its discussion of
nanotechnology and its review of the federal National Nanotechnology
Initiative." The notice states both that the meeting will be on December 2
and December 3. Stan Sokul, Executive Director of the OSTP, states that the
meeting is on December 2. For more information, contact Stan Sokul at 202 456-6070
or ssokul@ostp.eop.gov. Location:
Monticello Ballroom (lower level), Wyndham Washington Hotel, 1400 M Street, NW.

10:15 AM. The
Markle Foundation's Task Force on National
Security in the Information Age will hold a press briefing on its report titled
"Creating a Trusted Information Network for Homeland Security".
From 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM there will be a panel discussion. Lunch will be
served. RSVP to:
rsvp@neted.org or 202 638-4370. For
more information, contact Todd McGovern at
tmcgovern@markle.org or 212
713-7633. Location: Russell Caucus Room (SR-325), Russell Building.

Day one of a two day event titled "21st Annual Institute on
Telecommunications Policy & Regulation". See,
notice. The price to attend is $1,295.00. Location: International Trade
Center, Washington DC.

Day two of a three day conference hosted by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) titled
"Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology". For more
information, contact Cate Alexander at 703 292-4399 or
calexand@nnco.nano.gov. See,
notice. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

Day two of a two day event titled "21st Annual Institute on
Telecommunications Policy & Regulation". See,
notice. The price to attend is $1,295.00. Location: International Trade
Center, Washington DC.

Day three of a three day conference hosted by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) titled
"Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology". For more
information, contact Cate Alexander at 703 292-4399 or
calexand@nnco.nano.gov. See,
notice. Location: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.

12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Progress and
Freedom Foundation (PFF) will host a panel discussion titled "Taxes and
Regulation: The Effects of Mandates on Wireless Consumers". The speakers
will include Anne Boyle (Commissioner of the Nebraska Public Service
Commission), Thomas Lenard (PFF), John Muleta (Chief of the FCC's Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau), and Paul Rubin (Emory University). Lunch will be
served. To register, contact Andrea Knutsen at 202 289-8928 or
aknutsen@pff.org. See,
notice.
Location: Room 1539, Longworth Building.

Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response
to its
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [198 pages in
PDF] in it proceeding titled "In the Matter of Promoting Efficient Use of
Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary
Markets". The FCC adopted this item on May 15, 2003, but did not release
it until October 7, 2003. This is FCC 03-113 in WT Docket No. 00-230. See,
TLJ story
titled "FCC Adopts Order Allowing Some Secondary Leasing of Spectrum", May 15,
2003, and story titled "FCC Finally Releases R&O and FNPRM in Secondary Spectrum
Markets Proceeding" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 755, October 8, 2003.

Monday, December 8

The House will return from a recess at 9:30 AM.

8:45 AM - 5:30 PM. There will be a day long conference
titled "Patent and Trademark Office Day". See,
agenda [PDF]. Location: the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade
Center.

Deadline to submit comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.
The FCC adopted this notice of proposed rulemaking on June 12, 2003, and
released it on June 26, 2003. This is ET Docket No. 03-137. For more
information, contact Robert Cleveland in the FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology at
202 418-2422 or robert.cleveland@fcc.gov.
See,
notice in the Federal Register, September 8, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 173, at
Pages 52879 - 52889.

Deadline to submit comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
response to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding implementation of
47 U.S.C. § 272(b)(1).
This NPRM is FCC 03-272 in WC Docket No. 03-228. The FCC adopted this NPRM on
November 3, 2003, and released it on November 4, 2003. For more information,
contact Christi Shewman at 202 418-1686 or
christi.shewman@fcc.gov. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 21, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 225 at
Pages 65665 - 65667.

FCC Releases E911 Report and Order and 2nd
Further NPRM

12/1. The Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) released a
document [73 pages in PDF] titled "Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and 2nd FNPRM) that pertains to enhanced 911
(E911) rules.

The FCC announced, but did not release, this item at its November 13 meeting.
See, story titled "FCC Announces Report and Order Regarding
E911 Rules" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 779, November 14, 2003. This is FCC 03-290 in CC
Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67.

The R&O revises the scope of the FCC's E911 rules to clarify which
technologies and services are required to be capable of transmitting E911 information
to public safety answering points (PSAP).

This R&O concludes that "Mobile satellite service (MSS) carriers that
provide interconnected two-way voice service must establish call centers for the
purpose of answering 911 emergency calls and forwarding these calls to an
appropriate PSAP."

It further states that "Telematics providers that offer a commercial wireless service
may have E911 obligations and need to work with the underlying licensees to ensure that
E911 requirements are met. Those providers that do not offer such services, while they do
not have an obligation, should continue their efforts with industry and public safety
stakeholders to implement advanced telematics safety capabilities."

It further states that "Resold and pre-paid mobile wireless service providers have an
independent obligation to comply with our 911 rules to the extent that the underlying
licensee has deployed the technology necessary to deliver enhanced 911 service."

It further states that "We find it is
unnecessary to place a separate obligation on manufacturers of disposable phones or personal data assistant that contain a voice service
component because the obligation for ensuring access to enhanced 911 service is with
the wireless service provider, and they are responsible for ensuring that the devices
used with their service satisfy their 911 obligations."

And, it states that "Automated
maritime telecommunications systems (AMTS) are not required to comply with our
rules because their service fails to meet the four criteria."

This item also contains a NPRM. It states that "Although we will
not adopt federal rules at this time requiring multi-line telephone systems (MLTS)
operators to implement E911, the Commission expects that states will act
expeditiously on this topic, and references the Model Legislation as a valuable
guide. We also issue a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to continue our consideration of this issue,
and to ensure that we are in a position to take appropriate action should states
fail to do so or should it otherwise be warranted. Additionally, the Commission
will issue a public notice in a year to examine states' progress on implementing
E911 in this area."

The deadline to submit comments in response to the NPRM will be 45 days from
publication of a notice in the Federal Register. Reply comments will be due within
75 days of publication in the Federal Register. The FCC has not yet published this notice.

Bills Introduced

11/21. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA)
and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
introduced HR 3644,
the "Homeland Security Technology Improvement Act of 2003". The bill
would mandate the establishment of a "multi-agency homeland security technology,
equipment, and information transfer program to allow for the transfer of
technology, equipment, and information to State, regional, and local fire,
emergency medical service, and law enforcement agencies".

11/21. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)
introduced HR 3631,
the "Television Viewer Privacy Act of 2003". The bill would provide
that "An interactive video-related service provider may not collect, maintain,
or disclose any personal viewing information regarding a subscriber to the
service that is personally identifiable, without the prior written or electronic
consent of such subscriber", with certain exceptions, such as for billing
purposes, or pursuant to a court order. The bill provides for enforcement by
states and by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).

11/20. Rep. Ted Strickland
(D-OH) introduced
HR 3564,
the "Economic Sovereignty and Job Security Act of 2003". The bill
provides that "No funds available to the Department of State or any
other Federal department or agency may be used to make a United States
contribution to the World Trade Organization
(WTO)." But, the bill then provides that this provision does not apply "if the
President determines and certifies to Congress that the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (as referred to in section
101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) does not apply with respect to
the United States involving a dispute under the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (as referred to in
section 101(d)(7) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (as referred to in section 101(d)(12) of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act), and the Agreement on Safeguards (as referred
to in section 101(d)(13) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act)." (All parentheses
in original.) The bill was referred to the
House Ways and Means Committee.

More News

11/24. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) filed with the
U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) a
pleading [21 pages in
PDF] titled "Opposition of the Federal Communications Commission to the Petition
for Writ of Mandamus". This case is In re Cellular Telecommunications &
Internet Association, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
No. 03-1270. It pertains to the FCC's wireless number portability rules,
which went into effect on November 24, 2003.

12/1. The Copyright Office published a
notice in the Federal Register summarizing its final rule its cost of living
adjustment of 2% in the royalty rates paid by colleges, universities, or other
nonprofit educational institutions that are not affiliated with National Public
Radio for the use of copyrighted published nondramatic musical compositions in
the BMI, ASCAP and SESAC repertoires. The rule takes effect on January 1, 2004.
See, Federal Register, December 1, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 230, at Page 67045.

About Tech Law Journal

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.